Clearing The Air

[Roguelet]

Since this is called clearing the air. Please do not flame me but I was wondering where Rok was? Really just asking as he always had something good to say

After numerous private and public requests to alter his behavior were not only disregarded but were severely attacked, AND after his return from a short "time-out" after which he continued the same behavior, his account was deactivated for what was meant to be a temporary amount of time.

The numerous serious personal attacks on me that immediately followed that deactivation have given me cause to consider that deactivation as more than temporary.

This is exactly the type of thing that the members here do not usually consider when they're forming their opinions of how I handle a situation. My decisions are based not only on what you all see publicly but also on what I endure privately. When someone attacks me publicly, it's usually safe to assume (not always, but usually) that I am on the receiving end of 100x worse behavior privately.

[ageecee]

[quote="larrygene"]George you do not speak for all the forum members I can assure you!![/quote]





true dat

[Toccet02]

wow. too bad I'm so busy at work today and can't read all of this. But in skimming it, it seems rather silly.
Is it worth it, guys?
Just chill out.
--long-time Zoloft taker.

[WARHORSE28]

I would like to apologize to any and all for probably starting this flameout in the first place. I only came here to talk about horses, nothing more.

I would like to address the decorums I see here on these boards. Having said that, and having read Rogue’s statement, and having a better understanding of how these particular boards operate… I fail to understand where the “enjoyment” is in attacking other people’s opinions if we are not in agreement. We all come here with varying degrees of knowledge, understanding, industry participation, experience, etc. We are all unique individuals with varying opinions about a subject that is hardly carved in stone. Can’t we at least respect each other enough not to snipe back and forth if we disagree with a statement? Can’t we all just get along?

[UmmYeah]

I fail to understand where the “enjoyment” is in attacking other people’s opinions if we are not in agreement.

Amen.

[aardvark]

I fail to understand where the “enjoyment” is in attacking other people’s opinions if we are not in agreement.

Amen.

It is stepping on you to elevate myself. Typically you will see this behavior in a work place where there is favor, promotion, and money involved. The old timer who has been there longest and will be there the longest tries to maintain a lead position by stepping on his peers. Peers is the wrong word because the old timer views them as inferior. The hope is that he will be rated higher, held in high esteem with the boss. There is much gratification in being the perceived chosen one.

[zinn21]

In summation, Rogue has a difficult job, by and large does it well; Sam is dynamic and highly opinionated. Her primer on attacking an opinion is not the same as attacking the author-I don't buy but we are all grown ups with strong ideas and we need to toughen our egos to the point where a challenge to our thought process doesn't actually mean we have less value than prior.

As far as BDW and Rok are concerned, both provided more than enough fodder to merit their current forum circumstances IMO..

Now let's get on with the task of breeding, raising and developing a tip top racehorse.

[Bunty Lawless]

I fail to understand where the “enjoyment” is in attacking other people’s opinions if we are not in agreement.

Amen.

It is stepping on you to elevate myself. Typically you will see this behavior in a work place where there is favor, promotion, and money involved. The old timer who has been there longest and will be there the longest tries to maintain a lead position by stepping on his peers. Peers is the wrong word because the old timer views them as inferior. The hope is that he will be rated higher, held in high esteem with the boss. There is much gratification in being the perceived chosen one.

Excellent analogy. I'll take it into the horse mentality, which just might be more relevant to what is at play here. The Alpha (or often the Beta) horse will show the newcomers its superiority (in rank) by making it stand away from the herd until it has been bitten, kicked and kept from food for days. There really isn't any good reason for it except establishing the hierarchy. But at least in herds, when someone with more to offer the herd comes along, the herd allows the hierarchy to change. People tend not to be so astute.

[BridledObsession]

You guys always have the most intersting "discussions" when I'm too busy to check the forum.

Must be something in the air though.........my life's gone to h*ll in a handbasket the last day or so too.

At any rate, my advice to all posters, keeping with the child psychology theme, is "sticks and stones............".

[aardvark]

Bunty,

Equally as good, but one must highlight that horse behavior is what it is. People make a conscience choice to behave in this manner.

[Skipitgirl]

I love my Zoloft..........

[WARHORSE28]

Bunty,

Equally as good, but one must highlight that horse behavior is what it is. People make a conscience choice to behave in this manner.

Thank you.

[Sam]

I would like to apologize to any and all for probably starting this flameout in the first place. I only came here to talk about horses, nothing more.

I see no reason for you to apologise for anything. YOU didn't start anything warhorse. You made a statement, I challenged it ('attack' is a bit harsh, but whatever -- a lot of people can't handle being disagreed with no matter how mildly done -- as it were, only my first paragraph was even directed at you). Someone else decided to run with it. He's now paying for it.

(from this point out, assume all usage of "you" is collective, not specific. That means I'm NOT specifically addressing warhorse).

I would like to address the decorums I see here on these boards.

Rogue will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it has been a LONG standing policy that "decorum" is not to be moderated here. It's not her job to make sure you aren't offended by someone else's opinion or, more importantly, how they choose to express that opinion. It's not MY job either. No one has a right to go through life unoffended.

If you don't like what I say, too bad. If you don't like how I say it, that's really too bad but I would caution you to take offense to the message, not how it's presented. Personally, I don't think much of people who get lost in attacking how a message was worded just because they don't like what it implies (or even directly says). It's a cheap distraction designed to obfuscate the real issue. Otherwise known as a 'strawman'.

This is probably the most lightly moderated board I've ever encountered and MOST here seem to appreciate that (not just me). Despite what a lot of people here (generally those who don't like me) want to believe, I am neither the source nor the reason of most of the fights that break out. In fact, I made a conscious decision not to post for over a month but I lurked and saw just as many 'fights' break out that I wasn't even a part of. I get remembered because WHEN I step in, a lot of people will watch for whatever reason. Unlike a few posters in this thread, I refuse to play pop psychologist so I won't speculate on the whys. If I did, I'd be taking umbrage with the analogy of a bitchy herd mare. Y'all REALLY need to let go of this "Sam gets all the perks because she's been here forever."

I fail to understand where the “enjoyment” is in attacking other people’s opinions if we are not in agreement.

Attack is as wrong to use as enjoyment. If opinions are not to be 'attacked' (I prefer challenged, but whatever) then what is the point of even expressing them? If we're not to voice our disagreement with something, especially something we believe to be extremely ill-logical or even "Stupid" (because, god knows, we've pussified this country to the point that "Stupid" is now as offensive as "f*ck") then really, there's no debate, is there? Conversations without an opinion being challenged would amount to "I think Big Brown is the greatest horse in the world." "I disagree." and that would be the end of it.

Pretty damn boring if you ask me.

Of course, the most ironic thing about this whole issue is that I am accused of not allowing others to express their opinion -- these same people are the first to jump on me when I express mine. In essence, the rule is "everyone is allowed to say whatever they want however they like -- except Sam." A tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say? In fact, what do you think are the odds that this post won't be 'attacked'? The difference is, *I* won't take any such attack personally and will recognise that it's being attacked, not me (with a few possible exceptions).

edited for mas typos.. damnit.

[Roguelet]

I wanted to post this poll below as a reminder... 187 forum members overwhelmingly determined that the moderation of people posting on this forum should be little to none. 73%, or 139 members, chose that moderation should only be done in EXTREME cases or when something "may be OVERLY OFFENSIVE TO THE MAJORITY." Not annoying to one clique, not irritating to a few people, but OVERLY OFFENSIVE TO THE MAJORITY... that's a strong emotion from a LOT of people!

Do I need to re-do this poll? Is there a change of heart here? Since the inception of this forum one of the biggest issues here has been that people be allowed to post with their own style and personality, in their own ways, and not be censored on their opinions or how they express them. This means that just as you have every right to post your opinion or thoughts on something in the manner you so choose, another poster has every right to post the opposing opinion or thoughts in the manner that they so choose. This does not include pointed posts made for the sole and specific purpose of attacking a person or for baiting a person in hopes of making them flip out, but it pretty much includes everything else.

There are so many other forums that insist their members act or post in a certain way... I know of a couple that don't even allow you to post if you're not on board with their way of thinking; and people here have been complaining about the fact that another forum was recently shut down because people were expressing themselves freely...

This can't be done both ways. Either we continue with freedom of expression that this forum has always taken great pride in, and that INCLUDES the people who express themselves in a manner that you may not appreciate, or we become another place where your thoughts and expressions and personalities are controlled.

As time goes on, more and more members join who have NO IDEA, or at least no first-hand knowledge, of what this forum went through 5+ years ago... in a way that's very sad, because that experience is what formed the core of this forum and what it stands for. But, if times are changing than so be it.

You guys decide; I have my preference but I am only one person. While I do enforce what rules we have, contrary to popular belief and rumors that people like to make up and spread around amongst themselves, I am NOT judge and jury on the MAKING of said rules. I have been the dissenting vote on issues that I've had to deal with in a manner that I have strongly disagreed with before, and I can do it again.

Original PQ Poll:

How do you feel this forum should be moderated?
Allow posters to express themselves as they wish, only moderating extreme cases.
41% [ 78 ]
Allow posters to express themselves as they wish, but clean up any language or posts that may be overly offensive to the majority.
32% [ 61 ]
Allow posters to express themselves as they wish, but clean up any language or posts that may be moderately offensive to some.
8% [ 16 ]
Create a list of topics not allowed, clean up posts that may address these topics, and advise posters not to continue on that topic.
3% [ 7 ]
Create a list of topics not allowed and delete or lock posts that address these topics in any way.
4% [ 8 ]
Other
9% [ 17 ]

Total Votes : 187

[pfrsue]

While I understand that there is a difference between attacking a person and attacking a statement, I can’t help but think that the line between the two is an extremely thin one; particularly when it’s phrased in a way that could be construed as hostile. Saying, “I disagree with you and here’s why…” carries a much more respectful tone than saying, “What you said is probably the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard”.

By the same token, in my experience, I think a rational, reasoned approach lends more credibility to a point of view than a tone that dismisses someone else’s opinion out of hand.

It’s a lightly moderated forum, which does imply that thin-skins are not necessarily going to do well, but when the majority of posters are adults, slinging insults--even insults directed at ideas and not personalities--strikes me as unnecessary.

Oh, and for the record: Aquarius/non-Zoloft.